The Justice Department Was Dangerous Before Trump. It's TREASONOUS Now
Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 9 months ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"On Monday, August 8, Justice Department officials spent nine hours raiding the Mar-a-Lago home of Donald Trump, carrying out 12 boxes of material. When criticism ensued, FBI spokespeople in wounded tones insisted the press eschew the harsh term “raid,” and use “execution of a search warrant” instead.
“Agents don’t like the word ‘raid,’ they don’t like it,” complained former assistant FBI counterintelligence director turned MSNBC analyst Frank Figliuzzi. He added with unintentional irony: “It sounds like it’s some sort of extrajudicial, non-legal thing.”
But it was a raid, as the surprisingly enormous number of people who’ve been on the business end of such actions since 9/11 will report. The state more and more now avails itself of a procedural trick that would have horrified everyone from Jefferson to to Potter Stewart to Thurgood Marshall. Investigating, say, one lawyer, prosecutors raid a whole firm, taking everything — emails, client files, cell phones and personal computers — then have a supposedly separate group of lawyers, called a “taint” or “filter” team, examine it all. In this way they learn the private details of hundreds or even thousands of clients in a shot, all people unrelated to the supposed case at hand.
But, they say, don’t worry, we’re not using any of those secrets, you can trust us."
"On Monday, August 8, Justice Department officials spent nine hours raiding the Mar-a-Lago home of Donald Trump, carrying out 12 boxes of material. When criticism ensued, FBI spokespeople in wounded tones insisted the press eschew the harsh term “raid,” and use “execution of a search warrant” instead.
“Agents don’t like the word ‘raid,’ they don’t like it,” complained former assistant FBI counterintelligence director turned MSNBC analyst Frank Figliuzzi. He added with unintentional irony: “It sounds like it’s some sort of extrajudicial, non-legal thing.”
But it was a raid, as the surprisingly enormous number of people who’ve been on the business end of such actions since 9/11 will report. The state more and more now avails itself of a procedural trick that would have horrified everyone from Jefferson to to Potter Stewart to Thurgood Marshall. Investigating, say, one lawyer, prosecutors raid a whole firm, taking everything — emails, client files, cell phones and personal computers — then have a supposedly separate group of lawyers, called a “taint” or “filter” team, examine it all. In this way they learn the private details of hundreds or even thousands of clients in a shot, all people unrelated to the supposed case at hand.
But, they say, don’t worry, we’re not using any of those secrets, you can trust us."
"perversions we have seen have come from people who eschew freedom"
Unfortunately, that describes every government in history. Power always corrupts and attracts people with malleable ethics.
Some of the founders knew this; others didn't, or ignored it. The latter are the ones the current Deep State frequently uses for propaganda.
(A disgusting musical propaganda play comes to mind.;^))
Most who originally discounted the need for a Bill of Rights did so looking at the Constitution from a positive abilities role: because it explicitly delegated things to the Federal government they thought that de facto it left everything else to the States. Naive or otherwise, nearly all of them voted in favor of the provisions presented into what became the Bill of Rights and championed its passage later.
We can always look back with hindsight; especially two hundred years of hindsight. ;) Are there a few adjustments we could make having seen the effects of two hundred+ years of execution of what was - and largely still is - the most brilliant political theory for self-government ever attempted? I think few would argue otherwise. Even the Founders admitted that their goal was "a more perfect union" (emphasis mine). And that is surely the case: most of the perversions we have seen have come from people who eschew freedom. They foolishly believe that they can - and should - control others. And so they seek to undermine the system in any way they can.
Quite a few wrote that a bill of rights was not needed.
That was either quite naive or an attempt to concentrate power with no protection for the people.
Where would we be if no bill of rights had been added as the first 10 amendments?
imo, individual liberty would have been dead in this country before 1850.
France was an economic basket case after the war. England had just lost a war with the colonies.
Most of Alabama and Mississippi of today were part of colonial Georgia under the 1787 Treaty of Paris
that ended the Revolutionary War, and Spain was losing power every year due to their own monarchs' stupidity.
You believe the states united would have shattered and been conquered. I don't believe that as likely. We can't know.
I agree that we have to deal with the present threats, not the past, and the Constitution (and especially
the Bill of Rights) as originally intended are the basis of our chances of individual liberty.
I can't see the Deep State peacefully giving up the powers they have stolen.
They have proven to be liars, looters, traitors, and murderers of innocent people.
If we are to be free, we will have to fight the Deep State.
Proof of such must be easily available for examination by any American citizen.
An examination to prove authenticity of the original document(s) is vital.
Obama's birth documents have still not been proven authentic, imo.
I would extend such birth requirements to senators and con-gresspeople.
(We have also posted at length about term limits and campaign financing laws that should be changed.)
Few people realize how close we came to failing completely under the Articles of Confederation. It was only the charisma and temperament of George Washington himself who halted Shay's Rebellion and it was only Washington's presiding authority at the Continental Congress during the debate on the Constitution - along with Benjamin Franklin's statesmanship - which prevented that assembly from dissolving in the first place. It was nothing short of a miracle - with all the divine implications - which made the Constitution possible.
Now does that change the perils we are facing today? Not a whit. And you have correctly identified two major sources. And much like it was the Founders challenge 230+ years ago, it is our challenge to decide if we want to retain a Constitutional republic or allow it to fall to the tyranny which awaits if "good men do nothing." While I hope that our differences may be resolved peacefully, I am ready to stand and fight for freedom and liberty if necessary.
The other provision is that the three readings may NOT take place on the same day. There is no "fast-tracking" of bills. Allows for a good, deliberative process. Or as good as can be asked for.
"If you want to go to war it must be declared by congressional vote."
All they have to do is rescind the War Powers Act. That's the one which gives the President the ability to go to war for 30-60 days without requiring a vote from Congress. Now people are going to argue that we have to be able to respond to terrorist attacks, etc. but we always have the ability to defend ourselves. Congressional action authorizes offensive actions and - most importantly - the funding for such actions. See my previous post about spending.
"I would also urge an amendment to clarify the qualifications for POTUS and VP."
We already have those: that the person must be a "natural-born citizen" (meaning a child of at least one US citizen who has held US citizenship their entire life), and must be 40 years old. (Naturally, we should enforce the one that a VP must be similarly qualified.) Are there others you would propose we add?
"There are a lot of federal powers that must be revoked as they are not explicitly stated in the constitution."
Agreed. I would propose the following: that all proposed legislation MUST include a preamble stating the basis of Constitutional authority underpinning the proposed legislation (and upon which any legal challenges would then be filed).
"The federal reserve act must be reversed and a hard money standard reinstated that gives no power to the banking cartel."
Agreed. While I'm not wholly opposed to the notion of a Bank of the United States, it #1) should not be a private institution masquerading as a public one, #2) be subject to annual audits which results must be reviewed and approved by Congress, #3) rely on a hard currency standing. I would also state quite clearly that bulk conversions of currency to specie for export, however, would be subject to a graduated export tariff to prevent similar "runs" on specie as what we saw in the 1930's.
No law requiring funding can be passed without it being read aloud on C-Span and having public review.
If you want to go to war it must be declared by congressional vote.
I would also urge an amendment to clarify the qualifications for POTUS and VP.
There are a lot of federal powers that must be revoked as they are not explicitly stated in the constitution.
The federal reserve act must be reversed and a hard money standard reinstated that gives no power to the banking cartel.
First, you have to eliminate all of the agencies and cabinets which aren't specifically authorized in the Constitution (until Amendments so authorize them). My simple and easy fix is just to constrain the budget to only allow outlays which 1) prioritize debt payment and 2) are limited to total tax receipts from two years prior. No more deficit spending. Period. And if you want to go to war, it means taking money from other parts of government or asking for donations to do it. There's nothing better than a little competition to force some belt-adjusting.
Second, you have to force Congress to review and approve every single one of these proposed "administrative" rules before they can go into effect. And I don't mean by a committee majority vote, but by a full Congressional vote. Since the judges refuse to remand such decisions to Congress for clarification of their intentionally vague statutes, let's make Congress by law review, debate, and pass changes through the established process. And then they can also be held accountable for them.
That being said, there are a few Constitutional changes I would make, such as revoking the 12th, 16th, and 17th Amendments to start... I think I would also include an additional section in Article III covering the revocation of tenure if one's decisions were overturned by a Superior Court too many times...
Also time to completely open government agencies and employees to prosecution for negligence, willful or accidental. Why would these people be exempt? This would fix an awful lot of overstepping.
Load more comments...